Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Honest question:  why are these witnesses different than the original Whistleblower?

 

They are coming forward, corroborating the same things, and taking the full heat and risk. If the Whistleblower is being protected for his or her safety, are these supporting whistleblowers simply braver?

 

Witness v. Whistleblower

 

The Whistleblower's testimony is not necessary or relevant now. I'm guessing it would have been all be inadmissible hearsay anyway, if functioning under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

 

These witnesses, some under subpoena, are testifying to what they personally heard, saw, or did. Just this morning for example, Vindman testified that he was on the call, found it improper, and reported it to WH Counsel. He actually reported wrongdoing twice. Once that was shuttered, he did not go further, such as the Whistleblower did to Congress. Williams was in on the call and did not report the wrongdoing. I'm not going to call her brave for actually honoring a subpoena here. 

 

I guess there is a spectrum of bravery where each of these fall. John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney currently on the cowardly end.

Link to comment

32 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Honest question:  why are these witnesses different than the original Whistleblower?

 

They are coming forward, corroborating the same things, and taking the full heat and risk. If the Whistleblower is being protected for his or her safety, are these supporting whistleblowers simply braver?

 

 

I don’t think so. They may never have done it at all if not for the whistleblower. 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Potentially because Ergodon was blackmailing him due to Kushner greenlighting the Khashoggi murder. That is unverified but very concerning nonetheless

 

A crazy conspiracy theory that has the dangerous ring of truth. 

 

The list is so long it almost undermines itself.

 

Benghazi wouldn't have lasted a news cycle if it had happened under Trump. 

Link to comment

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don’t think so. They may never have done it at all if not for the whistleblower. 

 

Some volunteered. Some accepted the subpoena that others were allowed to refuse. All who accepted support the Whistleblowers account. 

 

Just saying the reason for the Whistleblower remaining safely anonymous is undermined a bit when presumed underlings have to answer Jim Jordan, or watch the media and internet go nuts with conspiracy theories, accusation of treason and death threats.

 

Are we to assume the Whistleblower works at a higher realm? That his or her identity would be a bombshell? How does he or she feel watching colleagues bearing the brunt of this? 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Some volunteered. Some accepted the subpoena that others were allowed to refuse. All who accepted support the Whistleblowers account. 

 

Just saying the reason for the Whistleblower remaining safely anonymous is undermined a bit when presumed underlings have to answer Jim Jordan, or watch the media and internet go nuts with conspiracy theories, accusation of treason and death threats.

 

Are we to assume the Whistleblower works at a higher realm? That his or her identity would be a bombshell? How does he or she feel watching colleagues bearing the brunt of this? 

 

 

Maybe he/she'll feel guilty and come forward, but at this point I don't want them to just because that's what the Republicans are crying about. And also, due to the Republican leaders' talking about it so much, I fear more for his/her life than for the others'.

Link to comment

 

There it is, that is it, AGAIN. I believe there may be reasons why this is not hearsay or applicable exceptions, but I don't think it will matter when Sondland testifies this morning. He's been boxed in by multiple witnesses and already recanted once. 

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...